on 27-10-2020 09:22 PM
For those non Victorians, who cannot comprehend what if feels like to be in lockdown for as long as we have been.
If there was to be another outbreak, would you rather the government lock you down for say 6 month and close the vast majority of businesses or the government observe your right to freedom?
Discuss
on 29-10-2020 01:50 PM
That's not exactly a ' moral obligation '.
I don't even understand the question.
Firstly we are all personally responsible for our own health.
Secondly the Government has a responsbility to place our taxes in the ' healthcare sector ' where they will be of most benefit to all.
Dream on there. lol
Thirdly - these days - if you are not covered by private health insurance - the ATO charges you a levy anyway - along with the Medicare levy..
on 29-10-2020 02:18 PM
@domino-710 wrote:
"Firstly we are all personally responsible for our own health".
In order to take personal responsibility for our own health, Government must fulfill it's responsibilities. They must ensure food, water, energy, medication, health services etc are all available, accessible, affordable and of an acceptable standard. Then there are those people who, because of various reasons, cannot make their own health decisions. I think the recent unacceptable aged care death toll in Victoria demonstrates this. Did Government fulfill it's obligation to them? IMO their treatment of them was immoral.
on 29-10-2020 02:36 PM
Pretty broad with - food - that is a personal choice - not offered on sale by the government.
But - kept to a standard - yes.
The job of Government is to ' protect ' - the way in which it was carried out - in hindsight - left a lot to be desired - country wide.
Just not sure where the immorality comes in - failed in their duty - yes.
on 29-10-2020 02:57 PM
Many elderly Victorians contracted Covid-19 while in aged care facilities and died in the facility. They were not transferred to hospital and given the best possible treatment to try and save their lives. If a transfer was not possible, then expert medical care was not delivered to them. Instead, their lives ended under the care of unskilled workers with limited equipment to support the seriously ill patients. Did their age have anything to do with this? At the least, If that's not immoral then I don't know what is.
on 29-10-2020 03:33 PM
NFS - given the ' pandemic ' - a lot has been learnt since January.
No-one in the first instance understood what was happening - what to immediatley do about it.
So much has surfaced since then - and dealt with - very successfully.
How it was dealt with was a failure to understand what we were dealing with - medically - not morally.
Did any government knowingly :
Immorality is the violation of moral laws, norms or standards. It refers to an agent doing or thinking something they know or believe to be wrong
on 29-10-2020 05:11 PM
@domino-710 wrote:NFS - given the ' pandemic ' - a lot has been learnt since January.
No-one in the first instance understood what was happening - what to immediatley do about it.
So much has surfaced since then - and dealt with - very successfully.
How it was dealt with was a failure to understand what we were dealing with - medically - not morally.
Did any government knowingly :
Immorality is the violation of moral laws, norms or standards. It refers to an agent doing or thinking something they know or believe to be wrong
Domino, a lot has been learn't since January. I personally have learn't a lot about our Prime Minister, our Premiers, our health services, and our aged care services. In particular, I have paid attention to the rhetoric that has come out of the mouth's of our PM, Health Ministers and Premiers. They cannot hide their body language.
The failures of the Aged Care systems did not need a pandemic to expose them. People have been screaming for years to improve the systems. But a pandemic struck which we knew was potentially lethal if the virus was contracted by the elderly. Instead of putting measures in place to "protect" them, look what happened. They were neglected and treated as if they were expendable.
I don't accept those elderly people died because we needed to learn how to protect and treat them. They too were entitled to norms and standards. And surely those responsible did know the neglect was wrong. Is it humanly moral to deny a person the support they need to survive because they are old? The Governments are accountable and must be held responsible.
I am not going to go on any further about the moral question, that is only part of the issue. I can only hope the people demand a higher standard of Government where the elderly are afforded 'equal' care and attention.
on 29-10-2020 05:46 PM
Agreed.
But the question was - does the Gov have ' a Moral Obligation '.
I stuck to the thread.
Simply - the question - the thread asked.
Not the - why fores -the where abouts - the ifs - the buts - & - the where fores.
The question did not ask for complication.
29-10-2020 06:27 PM - edited 29-10-2020 06:28 PM
If Governments are made up of humans, then yes. If the day arrives where Governments are staffed by something other than humans, then very obviously no.
The question did not ask for complication. But it appears the answer is not so simple, especially when there appears to be disagreement in understanding about a basic human quality.
on 29-10-2020 07:41 PM
The thread was ' moral obligation ' - not the ' obligation of government '.
Bob's like that. lol